CME集团董事长兼CEO Terry Duffy上Odd Lots播客谈金融监管，内容以观点为主，无新增可交易公司事实

【播客逐字稿全集 · Bloomberg Odd Lots】
单集:CME's Terry Duffy on the Disconcerting State of Finance Regulation
说明:以下为该集逐字稿的**完整原文**(未删改;英文档为 YouTube 自动字幕/节目原文,可能有识别误差)。请就本集内容判断是否构成**可交易**事件 —— 公司/产品/订单/产能/需求/合作/资本开支/高管表态等;泛泛的观点、预测、行业感想不算。若本集无可交易内容,判为不做。

--- 全集原文 ---
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios.
Speaker 2: Podcasts. Radio. News.
Speaker 3: Hello and welcome to a very special live taped episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 1: And I'm Joe Wiesenthal.
Speaker 3: Joe, we are here in Chicago.
Speaker 1: Great city.
Speaker 3: A very special show. It's a beautiful city and a huge trading capital in the world as well.
Speaker 1: That's why we love coming back here year after year to do shows here.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: So I'm very happy to say we do, in fact, have the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking with Terry Duffy. He is, of course, the CEO and chairman of the CME Group.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 1: Longtime chairman and CEO. Markets have changed so much since the start of his tenure. So looking forward to learning what he's learned throughout his career. All right.
Speaker 3: So take a listen. Terry, thank you so much for coming back on Oplots.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. Nice to see you both.
Speaker 3: You know, I mentioned you are, of course, CEO and CHAIRMAN OF THE CME BUT YOU'RE ABOUT TO TRANSITION TO A NEW POSITION NEXT YEAR.
Speaker 2: YOU'RE GOING TO BECOME EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. SORT OF A RETIREMENT? HOW SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT THIS? NEW SPEAKER A RETIREMENT. NEW SPEAKER I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN THAT. I THINK THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE GOOD SMOOTH TRANSITION. I'VE BEEN AT CME FOR 46 YEARS. GOT MY FIRST JOB FOR $ 56 A WEEK. I'VE BEEN THE CHAIRMAN SINCE 2002 WHEN I TOOK CME PUBLIC. And I've been doing this an awful long time and now being CEO for all these years. So I think it's really important to have a good, smooth transition. I'll stay on as executive chairman to help Lynn Fitzpatrick through the initial phase of it. And if needed, I'll be there. But if not, she'll run the firm. All right.
Speaker 3: Well, we're going to frame this then as a sort of exit interview for you. And we expect you to tell us all the really good war stories before you leave.
Speaker 2: I'm still CEO, so I've got to be somewhat careful of the public company. All right.
Speaker 3: Let me put it a different way. So you've been at the CME since I think 1980. So you've been working for five decades. You've been in markets regulated by the CFTC. For those five decades, how has regulation changed for you?
Speaker 2: How would you characterize the evolution? It's amazing. I was just talking to my friend, Don Wilson, who will be out here shortly and talking about the early days of when we both joined. Donnie was 21. I was 22, but I'm 10 years older than Don. So Anyway, when we look at the regulation and what it was, I mean, the CFTC was basically brand new. It was 1973, 72 area came into play. And it was basically a principles-based oversight agency for agricultural products. And then all these new innovations come along the way, you know, from financial futures, the equity stock equity indexes, then now the cryptocurrency and everything else that's going on. So it's changed dramatically. THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. AND THEN OF COURSE WE'VE HAD SOME SITUATIONS WITH BAD BEHAVIOR IN 2008 IN THE FINANCIAL CRISIS DUE TO THE LEVERAGE ISSUE ON THE HOUSING MARKET. AND YOU GO THROUGH A WHOLE ITERATION OF CHANGE AGAIN THROUGH DOT FRANK. AND NOW WE ARE STILL, EVEN 16 YEARS LATER, STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT PARTS OF DOT FRANK. SO IT'S PRETTY AMAZING HOW FAR IT'S COME.
Speaker 1: NEW SPEAKER I WAS TRYING TO WORKSHOP THIS QUESTION WITH TRACY EARLIER AND COME UP WITH A POLITE OR SORT OF politic.
Speaker 2: Way to put it.
Speaker 1: But, you know, we live in a time where like an agency that used to regulate agriculture futures is now nominally regulated. What a lot of people would say is like sports betting, but they call it trading and so forth. And, you know, there's all these new instruments, offshore instruments that people can access via crypto and so forth. The impolite, impolitic question is like, Are there any laws anymore? Because it feels like that. It really feels like that. Are there still financial regulations and laws?
Speaker 3: It's worrying that was the workshop.
Speaker 2: It does feel a bit of a ready fire aim strategy going on right now where anything can go. And so it's very disconcerting. I'll give you a couple of statistics, which really trouble me. Since the second Trump administration's come into place, there's been 2,500 self-certifications that have been submitted into the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Not one of them has been denied. Now, how can it be that not one of them has been denied? So when you look at some of these prediction markets, I've made fun of them, and people say, will you please stop bringing this up? I bring up they approved a contract on predictions on Nathan's hot dogs. How many hot dogs did Joey Chestnut eat? I have to ask. What's the economic impact of that contract being out there? And how is it not in violation of core principle three, which is susceptible, readily susceptible to manipulation? George Santos, is he going to show up at the State of the Union address when President Trump was there, the former disgraced congressman in New York? Well, he bet against himself and didn't show. So how is that not a susceptibility? I mean, the teleprompter for President Trump, you know, I mean, think about all these things that are susceptible to manipulation and So to answer your question, is there any regulation? Yes, there's regulation. And it's extremely important. The way we grow good, strong, confident markets is to have a good balance of regulation, not to have no regulation. No regulations on borrowed time. There's no question about it. Always has been, always will be. So, you know, what's going on right now at the agency is, They are circumventing basically acts of Congress and they are making rules and regs that are associated, whether it's at the CFTC or SEC. Well, I remind market participants, those are rules and regs of the agency. that can be easily swiped away by a wipe of a pen when the next administration comes in. We all remember when President Trump came into office this last time, and he had a big show about how his executive orders were getting rid of everything that Joe Biden did. Well, the next president can do the same exact thing. So these are not sustainable, good, smart regulation. Well, you need to make sure it can withstand any administration. So I think to answer your question, is there any regulation? Yes. Is some of it ridiculous? Yes. but it doesn't mean there's no regulation.
Speaker 3: Okay. Devil's advocate question, but the prediction markets would respond that like, well, you know, insider trading on the platforms, maybe it's a good thing because you get informational value from it and everyone benefits from having this informational value. I'm not sure there's much informational value embedded in knowing how many hot dogs a contestant is going to eat, but that's the typical response.
Speaker 2: What do you say to that? Well, I think if I heard your question right, insider information is good. Is that what you said? I... I have a hard time believing that for the average participant, especially that doesn't have that information, they would agree with you. And to think that certain people have, this is what we've all been fighting for through technology, is they have the ability for all of us to have the information at the same time so we can participate. I don't have as much money as my dear friend Don Wilson who's coming out here, but I might have the same information he gets. I just can't deploy it in the same way, but I should have a level playing field on the information. So to say that insider information could be a good thing on anything is offendable to me as a guy who's traded markets and run markets for the last 25 years. I just don't see any place in credibility if you're going to grow anything by saying you get to know, you get to know, but I don't get to know. And it's not too dissimilar than the president of the United States with Truth Social today charging $ 100, 000 to give information faster. I mean, you're the president of the United States. You're supposed to give information to all of us at the same time, not have a feed to get your information quicker so others can act on it. So I have a real problem with some of this.
Speaker 1: The guests in our live show tonight get information before the people who have to listen to our recording. So they pay for it.
Speaker 2: I gave an opinion. Yeah, it's not market moving hours yet currently.
Speaker 1: But another thing that they would say.
Speaker 2: That if we were to have.
Speaker 1: A prediction markets person, they would say, you have a legacy business to protect. And they say, well, they would say, yeah, he talks about the importance of good durable rules, but you know, prediction markets in theory could cut into CME business. How do you think about like, what do we, okay, sure. CME has a business. What do we lose in the investor community and the financial community more broadly than If there's continues to be this degradation of regulation.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, you lose a lot of things, but you talk, are you talking about prediction markets in general?
Speaker 1: I'm talking about like all of it and like beyond, like what are the costs that the public is going to pay? First of all, like these sort of CFTC rules.
Speaker 2: I'm not opposing some of these markets. I'm opposing the ones that violate the commodity exchange act or core principle, which is core principle three, which is susceptible, but at least susceptible to manipulations. You cannot list those contracts. And I just gave you a few examples of that. It doesn't mean that I'm against all prediction markets. If you look at sports, I believe sports predictions is gambling. I don't think there's any way around it. Almost everyone agrees with you. Well, they didn't for a long time. But from my standpoint, if LeBron James gets two or three rebounds, again, what's the economic impact to the three of us on this stage or the folks sitting here in your audience tonight? They have none unless they're on the yes or no side of that trade. That's it. AND MOST CONTRACTS NEED TO HAVE A NATURAL BUYER, A NATURAL SELLER, A COMMERCIAL, AND A PRODUCER OF THAT PRODUCT IN ORDER TO FACILITATE A CONTRACT. AND THAT'S HOW TRADITIONALLY MOST CONTRACTS GET APPROVED. OTHERWISE, THEY SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. SO I THINK THAT THE credibility of the marketplace is really important. Now, we started something with a company called Future Sports. Future Sports out of Australia, it's a great firm, and they're doing amazing things. And someone says, well, you're being a little, you know, two-sided if you're saying that you don't like, you think these are not... regulated and they should be regulated by the federal government, not the states. What about future sports? Well, future sports is an index. It's very similar to the S & P 500. Every team starts out at 7,500. You go up and down depending on performance. But at the same time, it helps people who own these teams monetize the value of their teams without selling them. So a great example, Chicago White Sox. We were fortunate enough to be a sponsor of the Chicago White Sox this year. And they had an amazing year that no one thought they were going to have. But my dear friend Jerry Reinsdorf probably could have charged me a lot more if I would have had a vehicle to lay off some of that risk to put a patch on his sleeve. But that market wasn't there. So there's ways to do that. And you can take that through the economic system of sports. And now we just did a deal with the NBA. We've done a deal with MLB. And these guys have done an amazing job. So there's a value there to the ecosystem. It's just not a value to you or not. And that to me is the big thing.
Speaker 3: Can we talk about perpetual futures in addition to prediction markets?
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 3: I know we're going to have Don Wilson on next. He has a slightly different opinion to you when it comes to perks.
Speaker 2: He's wrong, though.
Speaker 1: We've got to bring him out here.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 1: Anyway.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, talk to him. I'm teasing, Don. Why is he wrong? And also, I think I just saw that CME decided to shell plans for a 24-7 oil deal. PERP contract due to industry pushback.
Speaker 2: What was the pushback? We didn't list the 24-7 PERP contract because PERPs are swaps. They're not futures. And that's the whole premise behind our litigation with the CFTC. So the CFTC approved the contract for Kelsey Trading to list Bitcoin as perpetual futures, which futures, as some of your audience may or may not know, get what's called 1256 tax treatment. which is 60 long-term, 40 short-terms on gains because there's no capital gains in futures contracts. Swaps are done at ordinary, taxed at ordinary income. Swaps also comes with five days margin to clear. And if you don't clear, it's a 10-day requirement. You also have requirements as a swap dealer to register with the government. There's other things that you need to do to be in compliance with that. Why is that? Because in Dodd-Frank in 2010, I testified over 30 times of what a swap is and what a future is. And what perpetuals have is what's called a funding rate. I'll get to my 24-7 oil, but I did not list the perp. I didn't put for the perp. I just put for 24-7 oil on a 10 barrel contract, very small contract, just to compete with some of the platforms that are being traded overseas, which are supposed to be illegal for U.S. participants. But if you have a telephone with the VPN on it, you have access to the market. And no one's, to your earlier point, who's policing that? Nobody. So anyway, the funding rate of a perpetual is when two parties pay each other. That's how a perpetual works. If you're long and the market goes down, the shorts are to be paying the longs. And if you're long and the market goes up, the shorts are vice versa. So that's how they keep the market tied to the spot trade. In the definition of a swap, anytime two parties pay each other, it's deemed a swap. So they circumvented Congress. That's why I have a problem with perpetuals. It's everybody thinks, well, they have no expiration date. That's a whole other story that people can't manage risk with no expiration dates. In today's world, we have $ 40 trillion of debt. There's corporations that have massive loans against futures positions, cash positions. with their customers in order to do that they need to have a date certain when they're going to do it in a funding rate the way it works to mark the funding rate it can happen either at one time a day twice a day every hour who makes that decision so institutions go this is impossible for us to trade so i'm not a supporter of the perpetual market the way it's drafted today and if they want to list them as swaps and so be it but then there's a whole different set of uh qualifications you have to have to participate in the swap market, because that's what happened after the 2008 crash.
Speaker 1: Speaking of overseas platforms that people access with a VPN, incidentally, and if you haven't listened today, we did have an episode out with Jeff Yan, the founder of Hyperliquid, which is the elephant in the room here, so people can check that out. President Trump specifically said, like, oh, we're going to bring Hyperliquid to the U.S., like, Do you have a theory for what's going on? I mean, for those listening.
Speaker 2: To the recording. You think President Trump knows a lot about hyperliquid? Just curious.
Speaker 1: I'm an unbiased journalist. I don't say things without the fact.
Speaker 2: I'm just an unbiased CEO. I hear you, but come on.
Speaker 1: Well, do you have a theory for what's going on? Why do you think the president is actively courting this overseas criminal? blockchain-based purpose platform.
Speaker 2: Well, here, I did hear what Jeff had made some comments on your program, essentially saying he does not need to be regulated, that the users need to be regulated. The deployers. The deployers. So if you're TradeXYZ, which is 98% of Hyperliquid's business is done by TradeXYZ. The other is on their crypto franchise. That's the only thing that they list at Hyperliquid is crypto. And then trade XYZ lists the other products on the platform. So they're basically the plumbing is what Jeff's argument is. I've talked to Jeff about this. I actually like him. I think he's a brilliant, brilliant guy. But at the same time, you know, there's no KYC or know your client. That's an issue. There is. Situations on the blockchain where there's auto liquidation, which is also a problem. There's highly leveraged products. These things can cascade and create market moving events because of the high leverage and the small amount of dollars in there. So when you look at some of the leveraged products being traded on hyperliquids platform, their leverage can go anywhere from, say, 10 to 15 percent to 250 percent. So you think about 250% leverage on certain products. I mean, it doesn't take more than a tick or two to start to get somebody out one way or the other. And if they take you out, they might take the next guy out and you have a cascading up or down. That's not a good marketplace. I think Jeff needs to understand if he's going to compete and wants to compete in the United States and he's got the president suggesting he should, then he's going to have to understand how to compete under U.S. law because what he's saying does not comply with U.S.
Speaker 3: Law.
Speaker 2: It's actually in violation of core principle nine. And I can go through all the nuances of core principle nine, but it's basically fair and ready market access to all. But you have an obligation to to make certain that you're policing these markets as an institution, not just as the user. So we have no KYC, so we don't even know who's on the platform. But at the same time, he's saying, I'm not responsible. You can trade on it. So you're trading with people that maybe shouldn't even be participating, and they're affecting that market outcome. Which way? I don't know, because there's no KYC. We don't know who they are. So there's a lot of violation of U.S. law for him to deploy what he was suggesting on your show.
Speaker 3: So I'm going to ask another devil's advocate question. I want to make clear, devil's advocate, please don't come at me. But just on the leverage point.
Speaker 2: Don't say perp.
Speaker 3: Just on the leverage point. I mean, Kalshi says they limit leverage to like six times on their platform. The CFTC chairman has talked about if they do it in the U.S., they will also have leverage limits so as to gradually introduce them to a U.S. audience, I guess. Is Is a leverage limit not a good enough safeguard in your mind?
Speaker 2: I don't know what it is. I mean, you can say that you'll have limits, but I don't know what they are. So there's certain limits. I mean, when you look at what Bitcoin is being traded on, they've kept the leverage basically where CMEs had on their leverage for our Bitcoin. So not too dissimilar. I don't think that was a mistake. So perpetuals, as they know them, are not being introduced to the United States because there's no expiration date. Or because people understand the funding rate. They're trying to be brought here for leverage and leverage only. And if that's not the case, can you tell me why firms are trying to get leverage on prediction markets on Sportsnet? That's the next thing they want to do. And if you get into single stock perpetuals, like we have single stock futures, they want to have single stock perps. So the thing what they want is the leverage on those products. AND TO ME THAT COULD BE VERY CATASTROPHIC FROM A RISK MANAGED STANDPOINT IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEVERAGE IS. SO I THINK IT'S JUST TRYING TO OPEN THE DOOR TO BRING THEM IN FOR LEVERAGE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW A RETAIL PARTICIPANT THAT SAYS I REALLY AM NOT GOING TO GET IN THIS TRADE BECAUSE I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE EXPIRATION OR THE ROLL DATE. RETAIL PARTICIPANTS WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT'S ME AS WELL, WE DON'T TRADE FUTURES FOR SIX MONTHS OR EVEN THREE MONTHS AT A TIME OR A MONTH AT A TIME. WE'RE PROBABLY IN AND OUT MORE THAN NOT. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME THAT THE FUNDING RATE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IS ALSO TIED JUST TO THE SPOT PRICE. IT'S NOT TIED TO THE FUTURE PRICE. So there's a lot of problems with what they are saying here as it relates to this product. So I think it's an issue.
Speaker 1: When we bring on Don, we're going to talk about, um, GPU futures and all this stuff.
Speaker 2: I'm partners with them on that. I know.
Speaker 1: So I'm curious, like over the years, you know, various futures get launched and some become very successful and active and others never really, they kind of become a ghost town. Like I don't think there's a lot of activity on like Case-Shiller housing futures or the cheese futures or.
Speaker 2: The uranium futures.
Speaker 1: Do you, have you built up a good intuition for like, you know what, this future is going to be a ghost town or this future is going to like, this is really going to attract. Do you have a good feel for that?
Speaker 2: You know, you try to think you do. Sometimes what's old is new, what's new is old. So I'll give you an example. When we had treasury bills at the CME back in the 80s, they fizzled out because of just the way the rate market traded and they became almost a useless product. But as the overnight lending rates started to get more and more active, especially during COVID, I said, we should probably trot these back out right now. And they became quite successful for a while again. So we brought out that product again. When you talk about GPU futures, when Don originally introduced me to this product, I mean, there's people saying that, well, we're not quite sure it's an asset class. Well, it's already over a trillion dollars. Crypto is deemed an asset class, and that's less than three trillion. And that's over a projected period of time. The GPU market will be multiples of the size of crypto by 2030. And for that industry and for the administration to be holding this back right now, they're saying it's for national security issues, which I have no idea what they're referring to. Why is it national security? If the president truly wants to have artificial intelligence, we want to be the leader in it. We want to be the leader of data centers. We need to have a risk offset for these GPUs and other components. This makes no sense to me why they're holding these products back.
Speaker 1: This is the funny thing, like Kelshi you mentioned, it's like, oh, they allow the hot dog contract and they allow the speech thing, but then they nixed the, they're like, no, no GPU.
Speaker 2: But what they didn't do at Kelshi is Kelshi has a prediction market on compute and they didn't make them take that down. I thought they did make them take that down. No.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: They did not.
Speaker 3: Can we go back to 24-7 trading for a second? Because this came up on our Hyperliquid episode earlier. And I think I said something like it feels kind of inevitable at this point. There seems to be a lot of demand out there, a lot of guys in their basement, I guess, who want to trade stuff at 2 a.m.
Speaker 2: In the morning. Guys and girls.
Speaker 3: Guys and girls, sorry. My question is, like, who else other than the guys and girls in the basement and the exchange has to stay awake all weekend to make this actually happen?
Speaker 2: I believe, to be honest with you, and I've been saying this for quite some time, 24-7 is inevitable. And you can fight it. You can say, I don't like it. I don't want to stay at a desk. I don't want to stay up at 2 in the morning. But risk doesn't know what time of day it is. Risk doesn't happen every day ends in a Y. I mean, we don't know when it's going to come. The biggest problem with 24-7 is the banking system. The banking system needs to be available 24-7. We're talking about an equity market. In the United States alone, it's a $ 76 trillion market. There's nobody on the planet that could fund, pre-fund on a Friday, a $ 76 trillion market as the banking system is closed. Now, that's an extreme. I can pre-fund a crypto market. A crypto market is small, so we do, and we trade it 24-7. But there's a lot of products that you cannot trade, rates and probably for sure equities, until the banking system decides to go 24-7. Now, there's real-time payments. There's some other things that the Fed is doing. I spent an hour and a half with Chair Atkins. on Tuesday talking about a couple of these things. But it's just not enough unless we have a true 24-7 banking system. Then we will have 24-7 markets. And we may not like it. And we're going to have to be careful because there will be pockets of illiquidity. But there's pockets of illiquidity today, intraday as well. So that's nothing new that our industry is not used to. So I think that's what we're going to see. We're going to see 23.5 on the equity markets coming up by the end of the year. So we'll see how that goes forward. It'll be the first time that you'll see cash equities trading 23.5. I think NASDAQ's getting ready to go. So we're going to see some of these things that we've never seen before, but it's really important for people to understand that markets are going 24-7, but the infrastructure has to support it.
Speaker 1: What's one thing, if you could go back and talk to yourself at the start of your career, piece of advice you'd give to yourself based on what you know now?
Speaker 2: You know what? I've been pretty fortunate. When you go broke when you're a kid in 1981, I lost $ 150, 000 and I didn't have a dollar and that was borrowed. So you taught me a lot of discipline and it's helped me deploy what I have done today in my trading career and as an executive running a company like CME Group and I've been blessed. So what would I tell myself? I would say, don't lose your moral compass and be a little bit patient. And everybody can get into a trade, but it's really hard to get out. So I like to tell young people, I spoke at Georgetown the other day too, and I like to say, there's a sign up there that says exit. I said, it's a really important sign for a lot of reasons. And the exit sign is important because anybody can get in, but before you get into something, you should know how to get out of it. Whatever you're doing in life, if you can have an exit strategy, you will be more successful as you enter into anything. So I think a lot of people forget that because, and so I would tell my younger self is don't forget that you, It's okay to be wrong. And human instinct does not like to be wrong. So it's really hard to accept when you're wrong. So I think if you understand the exit strategy, you'll be successful going forward.
Speaker 3: I know the buzzer went off, but I'm going to squeeze in one more question. Just because we teased war stories with Terry Duffy. If you look back over your career, I can think of so many crisis moments. I mean, really just in the past 20 years or so, we had 2008, obviously 2020. negative oil, all that stuff. What was the most fraught or scariest.
Speaker 2: Moment of your career? You know, it's funny because in the crisis of 2008, I was, you know, I started, I became chairman in 02. And that was frightening to me just to begin that. But the 08 crisis was something that you kept thinking, this can't be real. And, but I really believe that my heart of hearts that no matter how bad this is, the United States government had to step in. And I think we all knew that. The question is how many dominoes would fall first. So that didn't scare me as much. I think that the pandemic would be one of the things that scared me the most, because I think when you yell fire in a crowded theater, that's what it felt like to me. And I was on TV, I'll never forget April 20th of 2020, defending minus 37.50 of oils. And I was being crucified why we let oil go to a negative amount. Well, what we did was we had our options priced at negative strikes because we could kind of see this coming. Not that we knew it was going negative that far, but we had to make sure we had price discovery, whatever it was. New York Harborsville, there's nowhere to put the oil. There's no demand. It dried up in a nanosecond. And to me, that was frightening because you didn't know how long that was.
Speaker 3: Going to last.
Speaker 2: So that was probably the biggest scare I've ever had. is even bigger than the OA crisis.
Speaker 3: All right, Terry Duffy, a man who knows how and when to exit.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you coming on.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: That was another episode of the Odd Thoughts Podcast recorded live in Chicago. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 1: And I'm Joe Weisenthal. You can follow me at The Stalwart. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Arman, Dashiell Bennett at Dashbot, Cale Brooks at Cale Brooks, and Kevin Lozano at Kevin Lloyd Lozano. For more OddLots content, go to Bloomberg.com slash OddLots for the daily newsletter and all.
Speaker 2: Of our episodes.
Speaker 1: And you can chat about all these topics 24-7 in our Discord, Discord.gg slash OddLots.
Speaker 3: And if you enjoyed this conversation, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. If you're watching the video, then please like or leave a comment or better yet, subscribe.
Speaker 1: Thanks for watching and listening.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.